Claude Fable 5 vs Kimi K3
Select two models to compare their coding performance, pricing, and features.
Key Takeaways
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 | Kimi K3 |
|---|---|---|
| Coding Index | 114.18 | 113.02 |
| Coding tier | S | S |
| Input Price | $10/1M | $0.8/1M |
| Output Price | $50/1M | $10/1M |
| Context Window | 1M | 1.05M |
Coding Index
Coding Index · Reference baseline: 100
Integer index difference: 1.16
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Verdict
Both models share an editorial tier. The evidence does not establish a reliable order within it; compare them on your own projects.
Capabilities & Use Cases Comparison
Claude Fable 5 Tier S
- •Complex architecture
- •Multi-file refactoring
- •Claude Code
- •Code review
- •Highest coding benchmark score
- •Adaptive reasoning with Opus fallback
- •Top-tier architecture design
- •Best for complex coding tasks
Kimi K3 Tier S
- •Complex reasoning and architecture
- •Multi-language code generation
- •Long-horizon agentic tasks
- •Self-hosting (open weights)
- •Highest-ranked open-weight coding model
- •Top-tier code generation and architecture skills
- •Strong long-horizon agentic workflow capability
- •Excellent DesignArena leader (3D, webapps, codecategories)
Claude Fable 5
Benchmark evidence and ranking method · Claude Fable 5
Cross-checked
Terminal-Bench 4.0 · Claude Code · max: 44.55% · 95% CI ± 3.85%
Artificial Analysis · Claude Fable 5 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, Opus 4.8 Fallback)
Test configuration: max
Terminal-Bench 2.1: 84.64% · SciCode: 61.00%
LiveBench · 2026-06-25 · claude-fable-5-max-effort
Coding: 85.99% · Agentic Coding: 62.17%
ModelRank assigns editorial tiers using public coding evidence, not automatic index thresholds or statistically proven classes. Price, speed, context size and sponsorship do not affect tiers.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
Data checked: 2026-09-10. Snapshot date is the retrieval date, not necessarily the evaluation date.
Kimi K3
Benchmark evidence and ranking method · Kimi K3
Cross-checked
Artificial Analysis · Kimi K3 (max)
Test configuration: max
Terminal-Bench 2.1: 85.02% · SciCode: 59.49%
LiveBench · 2026-06-25 · kimi-k3
Coding: 81.45% · Agentic Coding: 62.17%
ModelRank assigns editorial tiers using public coding evidence, not automatic index thresholds or statistically proven classes. Price, speed, context size and sponsorship do not affect tiers.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
Data checked: 2026-09-10. Snapshot date is the retrieval date, not necessarily the evaluation date.
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
API cost estimate
1M input + 200K output (USD):
Claude Fable 5: $20.0000
Kimi K3: $2.8000
Estimates use the displayed channel and time band; DeepSeek uses peak rates. Cache discounts, tool fees, long-context price tiers and uncounted additional tokens are excluded.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which model is better for coding: Claude Fable 5 or Kimi K3?
Claude Fable 5 has a higher reference index on the selected shared benchmark configuration than Kimi K3 (114.18 vs 113.02, a 1.16-point difference). This does not by itself establish general coding superiority. Editorial tiers: Claude Fable 5 = S; Kimi K3 = S. Tiers are separate editorial assessments and do not establish a reliable order within a tier.
How do Claude Fable 5 and Kimi K3 compare in API pricing and costs?
Claude Fable 5: $10/1M input, $50/1M output (OpenRouter quote); Kimi K3: $0.8/1M input, $10/1M output (OpenRouter quote). 1M input + 200K output (USD): $20.0000 vs $2.8000.
What are the context window sizes of Claude Fable 5 and Kimi K3?
Claude Fable 5 provides a 1,000,000 token context window, while Kimi K3 provides 1,048,576 tokens.